At the moment there are these mappings

org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
org.eclipse     -> dwtx

Symbols:
SWT             -> DWT
SWTError        -> DWTError
SWTException    -> DWTException
...

But there are more candidates for the dwt project.

com.novocode    -> ??
com.ibm.icu     -> ??
org.osgi        -> ??

Where to put them?
And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
collective imports help?

What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.

So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original? Would that work? What do you think?

Frank Benoit wrote:
> At the moment there are these mappings
> 
> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
> 
> Symbols:
> SWT             -> DWT
> SWTError        -> DWTError
> SWTException    -> DWTException
> ...
> 
> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
> 
> com.novocode    -> ??
> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
> org.osgi        -> ??
> 
> Where to put them?
> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
> collective imports help?
> 
> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
> again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
> 
> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
> Would that work? What do you think?

I find that when porting stuff, renaming is not a good option. Take for instance Descent. It kept all the names of JDT unchanged, and that makes it very easy to add new code, make plugins work almost out of the box, etc.

When I started Descent, I thought about renaming stuff like IJavaProject to IDeeProject, or something similar, but I asked the PHPEclipse guys what did they do, since they also used JDT's code base. They replied to me saying that they renamed IJavaProject to IPhpProject, things like that, big mistake, and that they were having a bad time getting updates from newer JDT releases, and that I should not do the same as they did.

So my advice is to just keep the original names. Anyway, the S in SWT means Standard, so SWT for D is not bad. :-P

Ary Borenszweig schrieb:
> I find that when porting stuff, renaming is not a good option. Take for instance Descent. It kept all the names of JDT unchanged, and that makes it very easy to add new code, make plugins work almost out of the box, etc.
> 
> When I started Descent, I thought about renaming stuff like IJavaProject to IDeeProject, or something similar, but I asked the PHPEclipse guys what did they do, since they also used JDT's code base. They replied to me saying that they renamed IJavaProject to IPhpProject, things like that, big mistake, and that they were having a bad time getting updates from newer JDT releases, and that I should not do the same as they did.
> 
> So my advice is to just keep the original names. Anyway, the S in SWT means Standard, so SWT for D is not bad. :-P

Thanks for your feedback.

Frank Benoit pisze:
> At the moment there are these mappings
> 
> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
> 
> Symbols:
> SWT             -> DWT
> SWTError        -> DWTError
> SWTException    -> DWTException
> ....
> 
> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
> 
> com.novocode    -> ??
> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
> org.osgi        -> ??
> 
> Where to put them?
> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
> collective imports help?
> 
> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
> again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
> 
> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
> Would that work? What do you think?
> 

I generally prefer shorter names. They are simpler and nicer IMHO. I would say that it is C++ way of naming packages, and this way is working quite good. Very deep hierarchies e.g. make me crazy when I have to get to file with file manager. Fortunately problem with deep directory hierarchy can be solved using good IDE.

Saying all above I also think that it is much more important for D to have more libraries translated from Java, than to change artificially names of packages just to get nicer names. Also keeping same names as in original library allows for easier porting snippets/pieces of code from Java.

So if it makes problems to change original names to D specific names, I think that original names should be retained.

BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:57:09 -0200
Ary Borenszweig <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:

> So my advice is to just keep the original names. Anyway, the S in SWT means Standard, so SWT for D is not bad. :-P

You can say that again.

Keep the original names is a good idea.

-- 
yidabu <yidabu.spam@gmail.com> http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwin

D 语言-中文(D Chinese): http://www.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://bbs.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://dwin.d-programming-language-china.org/ http://scite4d.d-programming-language-china.org/

Frank Benoit wrote:
> At the moment there are these mappings
> 
> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
> 
> Symbols:
> SWT             -> DWT
> SWTError        -> DWTError
> SWTException    -> DWTException
> ...
> 
> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
> 
> com.novocode    -> ??
> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
> org.osgi        -> ??
> 
> Where to put them?
> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
> collective imports help?
> 
> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
> again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
> 
> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original?
> Would that work? What do you think?

I would say even if you rename the imports, don't rename the project (i.e. the website, logo, etc.). DWT is a catchy name, even if using "DWT" requires you to import something in org.swt

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:27:15 +0200, Frank Benoit wrote:

> At the moment there are these mappings
> 
> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
> 
> Symbols:
> SWT             -> DWT
> SWTError        -> DWTError
> SWTException    -> DWTException
> ...
> 
> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
> 
> com.novocode    -> ??
> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
> org.osgi        -> ??
> 
> Where to put them?
> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
> collective imports help?
> 
> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
> 
> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original? Would that work? What do you think?

I do like the DWT naming, org.eclipse is not very appealing, but ultimately it is still eclipse's SWT.

I think a question would be, how much work would it take to revert back to swt stuff (guessing not much with automation). I think going back to the original will likely help in its evolution, which says to me "good."

Hello Frank,

> At the moment there are these mappings
> 
> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
> Symbols:
> SWT             -> DWT
> SWTError        -> DWTError
> SWTException    -> DWTException
> ...
> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
> 
> com.novocode    -> ??
> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
> org.osgi        -> ??
> Where to put them?
> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new
> packages.
> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs
> and
> collective imports help?
> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
> again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
> 
> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the
> original? Would that work? What do you think?
> 


DWT really is SWT throughout.  Even the coding style is almost completely Java-like.  I think that the only reason it remains DWT is because of the original porting precedent that chose the name. :)

It wouldn't bother me if DWT reverted back to the SWT name.  In fact, that probably makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing that it might even receive more recognition as a genuine SWT port from the SWT team and others if it were to revert to that name.

BUT, I really really hope we don't adopt the long package names so typical of the Java realm.  "org.eclipse.*" prepended to the dwt namespace would be painful.  That's one Javaism that I hope stays away from D.  But, if there are some REALLY good reasons that the complete package names should be included, maybe I could be made to agree.  I'm not very enthusiastic about Java in general, so anything that reminds me too much of Java or causes me to forget that I'm actually using D (which is supposed to improve the programmer's life)... is not good.

That's my opinion, anyway. :)

-JJR

Robert Fraser schrieb:
> Frank Benoit wrote:
>> At the moment there are these mappings
>>
>> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
>> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
>>
>> Symbols:
>> SWT             -> DWT
>> SWTError        -> DWTError
>> SWTException    -> DWTException
>> ...
>>
>> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
>>
>> com.novocode    -> ??
>> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
>> org.osgi        -> ??
>>
>> Where to put them?
>> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new packages.
>> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs and
>> collective imports help?
>>
>> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
>>
>> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original? Would that work? What do you think?
> 
> I would say even if you rename the imports, don't rename the project (i.e. the website, logo, etc.). DWT is a catchy name, even if using "DWT" requires you to import something in org.swt

Yes, that is not what i want. I am just thinking about the package name and symbols.

John Reimer schrieb:
> Hello Frank,
> 
>> At the moment there are these mappings
>>
>> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
>> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
>> Symbols:
>> SWT             -> DWT
>> SWTError        -> DWTError
>> SWTException    -> DWTException
>> ...
>> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
>>
>> com.novocode    -> ??
>> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
>> org.osgi        -> ??
>> Where to put them?
>> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new
>> packages.
>> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs
>> and
>> collective imports help?
>> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
>> again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
>>
>> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the original? Would that work? What do you think?
>>
> 
> 
> DWT really is SWT throughout.  Even the coding style is almost completely Java-like.  I think that the only reason it remains DWT is because of the original porting precedent that chose the name. :)
> 
> It wouldn't bother me if DWT reverted back to the SWT name.  In fact, that probably makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing that it might even receive more recognition as a genuine SWT port from the SWT team and others if it were to revert to that name.
> 
> BUT, I really really hope we don't adopt the long package names so typical of the Java realm.  "org.eclipse.*" prepended to the dwt namespace would be painful.  That's one Javaism that I hope stays away from D.  But, if there are some REALLY good reasons that the complete package names should be included, maybe I could be made to agree.  I'm not very enthusiastic about Java in general, so anything that reminds me too much of Java or causes me to forget that I'm actually using D (which is supposed to improve the programmer's life)... is not good.
> 
> That's my opinion, anyway. :)
> 
> -JJR
> 
> 

I was really not asking for renaming the DWT project. I think the name is ok. DWT started as a SWT port but now, there is much more else.

Changing the Symbol DWT back to SWT, well i never liked to rename it. It is the same reason i never wanted to rename jface to dface. The source is ported, but it is still SWT. And renaming is a bit like hiding the origin, which is not what i want.

About the package name.
How would you map org.eclipse.osgi and org.osgi?
How to map non-eclipse packages?